i'm following sigurd's idea here, though we really have no good place to post it. what do you think? i know what i'd say but i'm going to wait and see what other people put up first. it's a subject i've thought at least a couple of hours on, spread over a very long period of time.

to absolutely max out space expansion i'd say a capitalist dictatorship (the empire in star wars, except without the racism). picture lenin's NEP in space, with less government control and more secret police to protect govt. interests, for profitable enterprises: eg asteroid mining, most interplanetary colonies, space stations, gas giant mining. for non-profitable but still worthwhile things (interstellar colonization, theoretical research, extremely dangerous exploration, policing), a quasi-military, or in some cases just strait military, organization that uses prisoners/unwanted people for the practically suicidal stuff, with the incentive that if they survive they get set free with decent money, and uses volunteers for the interstellar colonies. eventually the secret police aspect could relax as government would not be able to force progress faster than it would happen on its own, but on the same note military would increase astronomically (pun intended) as the number of systems increased, the amount of trade increased, and the chance for encountering a hostile civilization increased.

Pre-World War One British Liberalism managed to achieve great scientific gains while encouraging colonial expansion, trade/commerce and still keeping a powerful fleet to keep the empire in an iron grip. It might work.

Rational Anarchist: No regulations, other than those that are designed specifically to directly protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Mantra: "Do as you like, as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others."

Personally I think, an authoritarian government with almost no capitalism would be in great troubles with development.
As we all know from our history, they "can" develop great things... but when something gows wrong.. their whole system is stuck..

That's why Libertarian is good.

I take the example of Spacecowboy:

Quote:

Rational Anarchist: No regulations, other than those that are designed specifically to directly protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mantra: "Do as you like, as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others."

This is a little Left and +- 50% Libertarian.

Respect the rights of others, rules apply to respect basic humen needs and protection, above that layer, you're free to develop.
People chose to have abortian or not.. to have a religion or not.. to be gay or not... to live in country A or B.. so government is scaled back.. PURE on safety and humen needs.. not corporate level (except safety, protection, human needs.. part).

Above that... every person is free to develop.. within safety rules.. but again those rules are very liberal.. if you don't harm an other.. and proven safe.. it's ok.

On this way, we can see the "most" new.. great projects get started and grow to real good things.. instead of authoritarian who will have most of the time only 1 program (semi company) working on a project without backup companies and multi versions of it.

Some facts:
Great minds.. are more on the bottom (Libertarians)... it's the people who can accept the diffrences of people.. and give them a real free "value".. who will get the most respect in return.

Most componist are libertarian, multi developed.
Some other componists, who got an high IQ.. but lower EQ.. (good in math.. but not social stuff) are more in the authoritarian right side..

We all know that a lot of people think others are wrong.. and they are right.. personally I think it's wise to accept diffrences and let others try to be diffrent.. cause what if you're wrong ? .. knowing yourself in diffrent situations.. something an authoritarian needs to learn more about instead of only thinking that he knows... cause most of the time.. that's just what he "loves" to think.. or "loves" to be.. and not what he really is (or she.. if she's a female person, just using "he" to make it more easy to write).

Again a good example

So, I see the same for space development.. "libertarian" side is the best one, but again.. not PURE.. (anarchy), kinda 50% to the libertarian side..
But as you may see on the first pictures.. most leaders don't give a damn about their poor people.. real basic needs.. or health (kyoto etc)..

From the psycholocial table, we can see in spiral dynamics:
Communist vs Democrats (Blue Meme, for going to Orange, Communist can't go to the next development stage.)

Terrorists/Dictators/Authoritarians vs Open Minded Libertarians (Orange Meme, for going to Green meme, only Libertarians can win to keep developing) most still for the future.. but as you may see.. this development age already started.. we're in the beginning of it.

Extreme Libertarians/Neo Liberalism vs Medium Libertarians (+- 50% Lebertarian, and not > 50% to the left or >50 to the right).
(Green meme, to go to the Yellow meme, the Yellow meme is the first development stage where people really accept each others., from that moment most "personal" diffrences problems for most people will be over.. but every child before adult has to go all the previous steps.. and some people will stay "under developed people"...)

For space, the same developments are the best in my point of view.
The same did traveler wrote down.. "That government is best which governs least." ... so only the stuff that REALLY is needed...

Hitler And Stalin both would have been great at Space Expansion. The both built Huge industrial machines from ashes and either could have taken the world if the had not both been matched by each other. The Hitler built V2's in his spare time while fighting on multiple fronts. Stalins legacy launched Sputnik.

The Dalai Lama can't keep a country on earth free let alone build them in outer space.

I am really curious as to why composers apply at all to Space Expansion...

And what sort of rule is "not harming others". The phrase "its for their own good" gives you an insant paradox. Would it harm them more if I didn't harm them a little?

Anarchy rocks but is not good for space which needs concentrated effort. Kings are not as cool but are likely the best selection for Space Expansion. Watery Anarchy is really wierd messy and hopeless for getting stuff done. Its Russia without Stalin.

Hitler And Stalin both would have been great at Space Expansion. The both built Huge industrial machines from ashes and either could have taken the world if the had not both been matched by each other. The Hitler built V2's in his spare time while fighting on multiple fronts. Stalins legacy launched Sputnik.

That's true, but still, it's only 1 space agency they would build, without manny diffrent systems, so it will work.. it will be good.. but it will be limited in engeneering creativity.Also if Hitler or Stalin would have "conquered" the world, anything they do.. from space exploration.. will come with a very high level of sabotage, revolts,.. you can't rule a world as 1 nation without constantly using force.. and even a military part of you.. can change side with rebels..Also this space development would come from the cost of other people who won't have anough food.. not everyone would have water... etc not even in the west would it be all good... and if they don't like you.. they kill you...That's a system that's doomed to go down if not tomorrow.. it's doomed to go down next year.In the end.. you'll get back again manny diffrent groups (countries), started by rebels.. fighting for beeing independent etc etc etc..So in the end.. no diffrence... Large Nations are hard to manage.; smaller nations can develop more quickly on human scale.

idiom wrote:

The Dalai Lama can't keep a country on earth free let alone build them in outer space.

That's not what I tried to say, you're possible right.. but I don't know, The Dalai Lama is a person who trained to be open minded, some people see him as a religion.. but it's not.. he's a person training "human" development, or you may also call it.. psychological development. He may believe in incarnation, and be called "monk"... but he stands for a lot more then just that.I see him as a spiritual leader, and yes he trains his mind.. to be controlled.Something psychology often uses to stop neurotic activity etc etc..

idiom wrote:

I am really curious as to why composers apply at all to Space Expansion...

Quite easy, those are developers, compared to the other Authotitarians composers, who're more closed minds, Mozart etc did a lot in his relative short life. In psychology.. the current period of development has a lot of cynics.. (people who think they know what's right.. what's best for others.. people who have the world in their mind.. and reality has to fit to it)It's those who're open minded, who can accept changes and other opinions who can develop more fast and on multiple fields at once.Those developments are needed, because space development isn't just about knowing.. but about creativity.. and creating new things.

idiom wrote:

Anarchy rocks but is not good for space which needs concentrated effort. Kings are not as cool but are likely the best selection for Space Expansion. Watery Anarchy is really wierd messy and hopeless for getting stuff done. Its Russia without Stalin.

Indeed, Anarchy is terrible for space.. there is nothing in my opinion that can justify anarchy for human kind future development.
As you describe with the word "kings".. well, main Libertarians would also work, people will still have the place of "commander" "general" "captain" on a space ship but those will be tasks to do.. not your whole life.. captain could be someone who have to handle the ship movements, handlings.. but he's elected by a council.. and has to return all the info he has to council on the ship. And again that council just exists out of ordinary other people on that space ship, from engeneers to the captain himself. (The council is just one of Libertarian ideas.. but manny other ways who can be even better are possible)
Watery Anarchy.. stays anarchy, and anarchy creates often Authoritarian groups on smaller scale.. so anarchy on nation scale, Authoritarian on smaller scale... so not even close to real libertarian ideas... it's just the fanatic side.. which just would fail... so anarchy is never an option..
With anarchy in the end... some groups will become very big.. and create their own country borders.. and start developing on their way.. so again the same history...

the council idea wouldn't work for a spaceship for the same reason why democracy doesn't work in the military. for major, long term decisions it would probably be best (joint chiefs, nato command, etc) but for fast decisions, someone has to have unquestionable authority that lets them act decisively. if they are responsible for anything but the results, then the system collapses and your ship dies the next time there's an emergency.

And what sort of rule is "not harming others". The phrase "its for their own good" gives you an insant paradox. Would it harm them more if I didn't harm them a little?

This is why I specified "Do as you wish, as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others." The answer to your question is yes: it would harm them more. However, that is not your decision to make; it is theirs.

This is not a True Anarchy (no government whatsoever), this is a Rational Anarchy (as little government as is humanly possible).

The three governments that have pushed space expansion have been the NAZI,s the Russian Communist govt and The US govt.

The US government got most stuff done through executive leadership when most were happy with executive orders due to "war" conditions.

Pretty much everything else is left over momentum built up by war governments.

True, but this doesn't prove other ways can't be better.. wait until you see the power of private companies with space development So a government.. allowing this, with freedom.. not too manny rules and laws that make it too complex.. is the best I think If it depends on tax money.. you're always limited.. and as a democracy you have to justify it.. but with private companies now.. they would be able to invest manny times more money into it in total compared to a government of a nation. For a nations government.. it will have to reduse other agancies or programs.. but if companies does it.. it's better for all of us..

On the point. The Ideal Government Posted on: Fri May 14, 2004 4:52 am

What if the question was not "What is the ideal Government for space travel" but "What are the practical steps in defining one"?

If the cost can truly be brought down to where thousands of private citizens can participate, then we'll have much regulation. It's seemingly the case that all the current developers would like to see happen. For if one can create a market, one succeeds. So success equals market regulations!

The challenge for defining an ideal government is perhaps more about finding the balance than shooting for perfection. Thomas Paine (1737-1809) wrote common sense in january 1776 and is a good example of the struggle between the factions of the time.

The public space frontier today is (I believe) comprised of determined individuals, venture capitalists and perhaps a few communitarians. These people and their companies are the epitome of the self-reliance requiried for the birth of an industry. Some may be smacking of dogma, but others are more interested in finding out what works. NASA on the other hand is the product of a government. It's mission and budgets are directed by legislature and the executive branch of the U.S. government. It's highly "regulated" within it's own operational structure, but without it, public space travel could not become an industry.

Today, due to the infancy of public domain knowledge and limited experience of space travel, both are highly interwoven. This supports an argument that without NASA public space travel will take several more decades to progress. In a similar vein, succees will be measured by our ability to replicate and transfer space travel knowledge for higher, faster, and scalable means.

We are already in the first phase of a workable legislature. We wouldn't be witnessing today's flight without it. But what about tomorrow? It's arguably an open market with very high barriers of entry. If tomorrow's public space travel is to scale with reasonable success, their must be reasonable legislature that supports this growth and not hinders the individualistic achievements nor restricts the support of one of the worlds most advanced institutions, NASA.